S-400 anti-aircraft missile system and S-350 anti-aircraft missile system: with an eye to the future


Do we have many air defense systems? In 2007, the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system was adopted by the Russian Air Force. The S-400 air defense system is an evolutionary option for the development of the S-300P family; initially it was designated S-300PM3. The new designation was appropriated on the basis of market considerations: in this way, the military-political leadership tried to demonstrate that our country is really “rising from its knees” and is able to independently create modern air defense systems without regard to Soviet developments. At the same time, the adoption of the S-400 air defense system was accompanied by a powerful public relations campaign organized by the Russian media. In fact, the S-400 has much in common with the S-300PM2 air defense system, the development of which began in the late 1980s.


Anti-aircraft missile system C-400


At the first stage, the main advantage of the S-400 over the systems of previous modifications was a higher degree of automation of combat work, the use of modern components, the ability to integrate not only the Air Force, but also other types of armed forces into various levels of control, as well as an increase in the number of simultaneously escorted and fired goals. Although in 2007 it was officially announced that the distant border of the S-400 air defense zone could reach 400 km, until recently, only 48N6 family anti-aircraft guided missiles, which entered service in the early 1990s along with the S-300PM air defense system, were included in the ammunition load. The maximum range of destruction of large aerodynamic targets SAM 48N6E3 at medium altitudes is 250 km.

In general, the S-400 anti-aircraft missile division retained the structure of the S-300P, including a multifunctional radar, launchers, autonomous detection and target designation tools. All combat assets of air defense systems are located on self-propelled wheeled chassis of cross-country ability, have built-in systems of autonomous power supply, topographic location, communications and life support. To ensure long-term continuous operation, it is possible to supply power from external power supply. The composition of the combat control system for the S-400 air defense system includes the 55K6E combat control center and the 91N6E detection radar.


Combat Control Station 55K6

PBU 55K6 is intended for the automated control of the combat operation of air defense systems based on data from its own, attached and interacting sources of information in difficult conditions of combat use. It is a hardware container F9 mounted on the chassis of a Ural-532301 all-terrain vehicle and includes modern means of communication, navigation and data processing. For visual display of radar data, mapping and control of subordinate elements of the complex, multifunctional color liquid crystal indicators are used. Compared to the combat control points of the S-300PS / PM divisions, the PBU 55K6 has become much more compact.

Based on the information supplied by the detection radar, the command post distributes the targets between the system’s guided anti-aircraft missile systems, provides them with appropriate target designation, and also interacts with air defense systems in the conditions of massive air attack attacks at various altitudes of their combat use, in an environment of intense radio countermeasures. The air defense command post can also receive additional track information about targets from higher command posts to which ground-based radars of standby and combat modes are closed, or directly from these radars, as well as from airborne radar systems. The integration of radar information obtained in various wavelength ranges is most appropriate in conditions of intense radio countermeasures. KP ZRS S-400 is simultaneously able to control the actions of 8 divisions.

The 91N6E radar detection system for air targets operates in the decimeter frequency range and is a development option for the 64N6E station used in the S-300PM. All elements of the complex are placed on the MZKT-7930 chassis.

S-400 anti-aircraft missile system and S-350 anti-aircraft missile system: with an eye to the future

RLC 91N6E

Open sources say that RLK 91N6E is capable of automatically tracking ballistic targets with an EPR of 0,4 square meters. m flying at a speed of up to 4800 m / s at a range of up to 230 km. Large high-altitude air targets are taken for escort from 530 km. The maximum detection range is 600 km.

For maximum adaptation to the air situation in the RLC 91N6E, various modes of all-round and sector-wide viewing are implemented, including those with a stopped drive for rotating the antenna and tilting the headlight. The radar uses a two-way pass-through type headlamp with beam scanning in two planes. High noise immunity is ensured by programmable tuning of the carrier frequency from pulse to pulse and the introduction of special high-potential modes of sectorial review of space.

The expansion of the capabilities for the timely detection of air targets by anti-aircraft missile regiments armed with S-400 is provided by the optionally attached high-altitude 96L6E detector, the Opponent-GE, Gamma-D, and Sky-M radars.

Multifunctional radar station 92N6E provides target detection, taking them to escort and guidance anti-aircraft missiles, with automatic assessment of the results of firing.


MRLS 92N6E

Combined with the 92K6E control system, the 30N6E radar system provides the possibility of autonomous actions of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile battalion in the responsibility sector. The most important element of the 92N6E radar system is a high-potential three-coordinate monopulse station with a phased array antenna of a through type with a diverse set of signals. It is able to provide simultaneous route tracking of 100 goals and accurate tracking of 6 goals. MRLS 92N6E automatically exchanges information with SU 30K6E.


According to the brochures, the S-400 can have up to 12 launchers 5P85TE2 (towed) or 5P85SE2 (self-propelled). However, in practice, there are no more than eight launchers in drill divisions. Each towed or self-propelled launcher has four transport and launch containers with anti-aircraft missiles. Means of combat control and guidance are capable of simultaneously firing 36 targets using 72 anti-aircraft missiles, which exceeds the fire capabilities of a standard anti-aircraft missile division.


Initially, the S-400 air defense system, equipped with towed launchers and BAZ-64022 tractors, entered the troops. However, such an option for mobility and cross-country ability on soft soils loses to complexes on a self-propelled chassis and is actually a step back to the first modification of the S-300PT, adopted for service in 1978.


Towed launchers 5P85TE2

This is not to say that our military and the creators of the S-400 air defense system did not understand the flaw of this approach, but they were forced to put up with it, since the production of MAZ-543M wheeled vehicles remained in Belarus. However, a few years after the adoption of the S-400 in service, self-propelled launchers appeared in the troops. In this case, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation took a master's approach, using the S-300PS anti-aircraft missile launcher. Considering that launchers mainly carry combat duty on stationary positions, in most cases they have low mileage and significant residual life. After a major overhaul, the MAZ-543M chassis, released in the mid and late 1980s, mounted launch equipment for new missiles, modern communications and combat control equipment.


However, it is also not worth overestimating the level of mobility of vehicles based on the MAZ-543M. Despite the fact that SPU5P85SE2 is not the heaviest element of air defense systems, the weight of the self-propelled launcher exceeds 42 tons, the length is 13 and the width is 3,8 meters. It is clear that with such overall dimensions, despite the four-axle base, the vehicle’s patency over soft soils and various irregularities will be far from ideal.

To defeat aerodynamic and ballistic targets, the S-400 air defense system at the first stage included 48N6E2 and 48N6E3 anti-aircraft guided missiles, originally created for the S-300PM air defense system. SAM 48N6E2 and 48N6E3 with a range of 200 km and 250 km and weighing 1800-1900 kg have the same layout and semi-active GOS. On the opposite course, these missiles are capable of destroying targets flying at speeds of up to 2800 m / s and 4800 m / s, respectively. These missiles use adaptive warheads weighing 150-180 kg, specially designed to increase the effectiveness of hitting ballistic targets.


Models of anti-aircraft missiles 48N6E2, 9M96E and 9M96E2

At arms exhibitions and aerospace salons, the S-400 variant with 9M96E and 9M96E2 missiles was advertised in the past. These highly maneuverable gas-dynamic missiles are capable of maneuvering with an overload of up to 20G. The 9M96E and 9M96E2 missiles are fully unified in terms of airborne equipment, combat equipment and design, the 9M96E missile differs from the 9M96E2 in size and characteristics. The range of hitting the target 9M96E SAM - 40 km, and the height of the lesion from 5 to 20 km, weight - 335 kg. The range of defeat of the target SAM 9M96E2 - 120 km, the height of the defeat - from 5 m to 30 km, weight - 420 kg. Small missile control - combined. For most of the flight path, a programmable autopilot is used, using information about the coordinates of the target, entered into the on-board equipment of SAMs by ground-based SAM systems before launch and adjusted during the flight by radio link. At the end of the flight, the missile is aimed at the target by an active homing radar. Despite the advertisements, there is no information that the 9M96E and 9M96E2 missiles are indeed included in the S-400 ammunition of real objects involved in the cover.

Since the adoption of the S-400 air defense system, Russian senior military and civilian officials have regularly made statements about the imminent appearance of a long range 40H6E missile in the ammunition as part of self-PR and raising the degree of patriotic sentiment. The need to create this missile became especially urgent after our anti-aircraft missile forces broke up with the last S-2008VM / D air defense systems in 200, and there was an urgent need for a “long arm” capable of reaching large altitude targets at extreme distances: RTR airplanes , AWACS and EW, air command posts and strategic bombers to the turn of the launch of cruise missiles. Firing at horizontal targets beyond the radio visibility of ground guidance locators required the installation of a fundamentally new homing head on the rocket, capable of operating in both semi-active and active modes. In the latter case, the rocket after climbing on command from the ground is put into search mode and, upon detecting the target, is aimed at it independently.

According to available information, the dimensions and mass of the 40N6E missiles are close to 48N6E2 and 48N6E3 missiles, which allows the use of standard TPKs. According to updated data, the far boundary of the zone of destruction of SAM 40N6E is 380 km. Reach in height - 10-30000 m. A number of sources say that the 40N6E missile was put into service in 2015. However, until recently, this type of missiles in the troops was not, and the process of saturation with long-range missiles of combat divisions carrying combat duty is in the initial stage.

The first S-400 division kit in 2007 entered the 606th anti-aircraft missile regiment of the 5th Air Defense Division, stationed in the vicinity of the city of Elektrostal in the Moscow Region. The second division of the same regiment re-equipped with new equipment in 2009. Previously, the 606th zrp was armed with the S-300PM air defense system. Until 2011, the S-400 air defense system was in trial operation and actually underwent military tests, during which various "children's sores" were identified and quickly eliminated. After eliminating most of the identified shortcomings, serial deliveries of the anti-aircraft system to the troops began and the S-400 began to be offered to foreign customers.


Google Earth satellite image: S-400 position 10 km southwest of the city of Elektrostal, image taken in 2011
After 2011, anti-aircraft missile troops received two to four regimental sets of S-400 per year. Currently, 400 anti-aircraft missile regiments are armed with the S-29 system in the Russian Aerospace Forces. In most cases, the regiment has two divisions, although there are exceptions. For example, in the 1532th zrp, covering the base of nuclear submarines and the Yelizovo airfield in Kamchatka, there are three zrdn.


Google Earth satellite image: S-400 position in the Kaliningrad region

According to open sources, as of the second half of 2019, we had 57 S-400 submarines. Of these, twelve are deployed around Moscow, ten in the Leningrad region, two in the Saratov region, four in the Kaliningrad region, two in the Murmansk region, two in the Arkhangelsk region, two on Novaya Zemlya, in the vicinity of the Rogachevo airfield, two near Novorossiysk, six in the Crimea, two in the Novosibirsk region, six in the Primorsky Territory, two in the Khabarovsk Territory, three in Kamchatka. There were also plans to deploy S-400 air defense systems near Tiksi in Yakutia. At least one S-400 division is deployed at the Russian military base Hmeimim in Syria.


Google Earth satellite image: C-400 position based on Hmeimim

The S-400 air defense system, created using the most modern achievements of domestic science and technology, is one of the most advanced air defense systems in the world and has some anti-missile capabilities. However, it should be understood that any means of air defense is not used by itself, but in combination with other components. Without establishing interaction with the fighter aviation, other ground-based systems and in the absence of information exchange with centralized control authorities, any air defense system will ultimately be suppressed or destroyed by means of air attack. The presence of a constant radar field in the entire range of heights also plays a very important role.

Official Russian media are forming the view that the S-300PM / S-400 air defense system is a superweapon capable of influencing the course of hostilities only with its presence, and they can withstand withstand all threats: ballistic and cruise missiles, combat helicopters, attack and reconnaissance aircraft , as well as unmanned aerial vehicles of any size and purpose. However, one should not think that with the help of SAM 40N6E it is possible to bring down a cruise missile at the maximum range of fire. The real range of destruction of such a complex target will be many times less, which is primarily due to the difficulty of detecting RS with low ESR, flying at low altitude. The S-400 air defense system is unable to hit low-flying targets outside the radio horizon of tens of kilometers. Even taking into account the use of towers for the radar, it is possible to detect low-flying aircraft at distances of less than 100 km and a cruise missile at a distance of 50-60 km. In addition, long-range anti-aircraft systems themselves need cover from low-altitude air attack systems. But not all of our S-400 anti-aircraft missile regiments have been given the Pantsir missile-cannon systems.

The ready-to-use ammunition for one anti-aircraft missile division usually does not exceed 32 missiles. In the course of practical firing at ranges in a difficult jamming environment, it was repeatedly confirmed that the real probability of a small missile hitting small-sized high-speed targets at low altitude is not more than 0,8. For guaranteed defeat of a “difficult” target, it is necessary to launch 2-3 missiles on it. Of course, the S-400 air defense system with new SAMs is significantly superior to any previous generation systems in terms of the number of target channels, range, damage height and noise immunity, but it is guaranteed that it is impossible to shoot down one modern combat aircraft or a cruise missile with one anti-aircraft missile. In addition, no quality cancels the quantity, it is impossible to hit more air targets than there are anti-aircraft missiles in the ready-to-use ammunition. In other words, if all the missiles were consumed in the firing position, then any, even the most modern and effective anti-aircraft system becomes nothing more than a pile of expensive metal, and it does not matter at all how many times it is more effective than its foreign counterparts.


Also, one should not forget that even with the presence of spare missiles and infecting vehicles, the reloading process of all the launchers of the division is quite lengthy and time-consuming. It is probably unnecessary to remind that the enemy, having detected the launches of anti-aircraft missiles, is unlikely to ignore this, and the most optimal for the air defense system will be to leave the compromised position immediately after firing, and there will be no time for reloading.

Anti-aircraft missile system C-350


For all its merits, the S-400 is quite expensive. From the moment the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system was adopted for service, it was clear that it was not able to replace the S-1PT and S-1PS removed from service in a 300: 300 ratio. When shooting at small low-altitude targets, such as cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and helicopters, the capabilities of the S-400 air defense system are often excessive. In this regard, we can give an analogy: when performing work that does not require significant effort, it is better to do with a hammer of a suitable size and not to use a sledgehammer.

After decommissioning and partial transferring to the storage bases in the mid-1990s of all low-altitude S-125 air defense systems, the anti-aircraft missile troops felt a great need for an inexpensive, relatively simple anti-aircraft complex with better mobility and greater flexibility than the existing S-300P and S-400 . In 2007, it became known that the Almaz-Antey concern, by order of the RF Ministry of Defense, was creating a medium-range complex based on the KM-SAM air defense system manufactured for delivery to the Republic of Korea. According to the contract signed in 2010, in 2013 the new complex was supposed to enter the army and replace the S-300PS air defense systems in the air defense system, as well as the S-300V air defense systems and Buk-M1 air defense systems, which were transferred to the Air Force and Air Defense Command during the period "Serdyukovschiny."

However, the process of creating and adopting the air defense system, which received the designation S-350 “Vityaz”, was dragged on for a long time. In early 2013, the Izvestia newspaper reported that the leadership of the Russian Air Force expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of work, and the first tests of the complex were scheduled for autumn. In June 2013, the S-350 air defense system was publicly presented during the president’s visit to the Obukhov plant, where some elements of the complex were assembled. In August 2013, the complex was included in the exhibition at the MAKS-2013 air show.


Elements of the S-350 air defense system at the MAKS-2013 air show

At the beginning of 2014, a representative of the Almaz-Antey air defense concern announced that state tests of the S-350 Vityaz air defense system would be completed in late 2014 - early 2015. In 2014, the head of the Almaz-Antey air defense concern announced that serial production of the complex would begin in 2015. However, as it often happens recently with us, the deadlines were greatly shifted to the right and the state tests of the new S-350 Vityaz air defense system were completed only in April 2019. Judging by the images of the complex, some of its elements differ from the samples presented earlier at the air show and military equipment exhibitions.


Elements of the S-350 air defense system in the air defense training center

At the end of 2019, the Almaz-Antey concern transferred the first set of S-350 air defense systems to the Russian Ministry of Defense, which entered the training center for anti-aircraft missile forces in Gatchina. Then it was announced that until 2027 put on combat duty 12 divisions equipped with S-350.


Google Earth satellite image: air defense training center in Gatchina

According to the materials provided by the developer, the S-350 air defense system includes: up to eight 50P6A self-propelled launchers, 50N6A multi-functional radar, 50K6A combat control station, and 92N6E multi-functional radar (also used in S-400 air defense systems).

The combat control station 50K6A on a three-axle off-road chassis BAZ-69095 is designed to guide the actions of all means of the complex. It provides interaction with neighboring S-350 air defense systems and higher command posts.


Control point 50K6A

Information processing and display tools allow you to simultaneously accompany up to 200 aerodynamic and ballistic targets. The maximum distance to the combat control point of the neighboring S-350 air defense system is 15 km. The maximum distance to a higher command post is 30 km.

The 50N6A multifunctional radar on the BAZ-69095 chassis can be removed up to 2 km from the control point, and operate without operator intervention. Viewing airspace is carried out in a circular and sectorial modes. The antenna rotation speed is 40 rpm.


Multifunctional radar 50N6A

The detection range of air targets in open sources is not disclosed. But, according to expert estimates, a fighter target at an average height can be detected within a radius of 250 km. Radar equipment allows the construction of 100 air targets. In the targeting mode, the 50N6A radar provides firing of 16 aerodynamic and 12 ballistic targets and simultaneous guidance of 32 missiles.

The 50P6A self-propelled launcher on the BAZ-690902 four-axle chassis is designed for transportation, storage, automatic prelaunch preparation and launch of 12 9M96E2 anti-aircraft missiles. Missiles can be launched at intervals of 2 seconds. Ammunition replenishment time is 30 minutes. SPU can be spaced from the KP Zrdn to a distance of 2 km.


Self-propelled launcher 50P6A

According to information published during various exhibition events, in addition to 9M96E2 missiles with an active radar guidance head, it is planned to introduce 350M9 short-range missiles in the S-100 air defense system. The 9M100 missile with a firing range of 15 km and a reach of 5-8000 m in height is primarily intended for self-defense and the fight against drones. The zone of destruction of aerodynamic targets in range: 1500-60000 m, in height: 10-30000 m.

Considering that up to 350 SPUs are used in the S-8 division, 96 anti-aircraft missiles can be launched over the air enemy in a short period of time, which is three times more than what is available in the S-400. In addition, due to the smaller dimensions of the S-350 SAM, it has better mobility and is less noticeable on the ground. This complex can equally well be used to provide air defense and missile defense for stationary objects and military groups. However, it would be wrong to assume that the latest S-350 and Buk-M3 air defense systems are competitors. The S-350 complex is primarily intended for carrying out long combat duty and repelling sudden massive air strikes. The Buk-M3 air defense missile system, being placed on a caterpillar chassis, is capable of traveling over rough terrain and weak soils in the same columns tanks and BMP. In connection with a different conceptual approach to the construction of object and military complexes, the Buk-M3 SAM has the best combat survivability. But at the same time, compared with the S-350 created for the Russian Air Force, the army Buk-M3 is much more expensive and more difficult to operate. Although in the past air defense systems on a caterpillar chassis were forced to use to provide air defense of strategically important targets, the use of army systems in this role cannot be considered rational.

The number and combat capabilities of Russian air defense systems and medium and long-range air defense systems


In the course of the work on the review cycle devoted to the anti-aircraft systems available in the air defense units of the ground forces and in the anti-aircraft missile forces of the airborne forces of the Russian Federation, I did not initially plan to dwell on the current state of the air defense system of our country, but some readers are forcing to do so. In the comment to the publication “The basis of the ground segment of the air defense of the Russian Federation in the 1990s. ZRS S-300PT, S-300PS and S-300PM " one of the readers wrote the following (punctuation and spelling preserved):

S-300 in Russia of all modifications wagon and trolley. True, there were breakdowns accompanied by SR - 71, the infection flew too quickly in those years, but everything else was in openwork. And I pulled the strap on the "Wasp". And now everything is closed (in the sense of heaven), you will not wish the enemy. And the base is S-300. Even during the USSR, this was not.

Of course, it is strange when a person who served in the Osa short-range military complex talks about the capabilities of the S-75M3 / M4, S-200VM / D and S-300PT / PS air defense systems to support high-speed high-altitude targets, but it’s not even in that. We will consider what was in the USSR and how everything is “closed” now, and we will do this using the example of the 11th Red Banner Air Defense Army, which ensures the inviolability of our air borders in the Far East. The zone of responsibility 11 OA of air defense - objects of defense within the Khabarovsk, Primorsky and Kamchatka territories, the Amur, Jewish Autonomous and Sakhalin Regions, the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug - a territory comparable to the area of ​​several European states.

Until 1994, the 11th Air Defense OA included: the 8th Air Defense Corps (Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Khabarovsk Territory), the 23rd Air Defense Corps (Vladivostok, Primorsky Territory), the 72nd Air Defense Corps (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Kamchatka Oblast), 25th Air Defense Division (Coal Mine, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug), 29th Air Defense Division (Belogorsk, Amur Region). At the time of the collapse of the USSR, Far Eastern borders were defended by 11 fighter regiments armed with interceptors: Su-15TM, ​​MiG-23ML / MLD / MLA, MiG-25PD / PDS, MiG-31 and Su-27P. The armament of the fighter aviation regiments of the USSR Air Defense Forces deployed in the Far East, excluding the Yak-28P, Su-15 and MiG-23 aircraft that were in storage, and front-line fighters, there were more than 300 fighter interceptors. About 70 anti-aircraft missile divisions S-75M3, S-125M / M1, S-200VM and S-300PS were deployed at positions around strategically important objects, in the Primorsky and Khabarovsk territories, Amur, Magadan, Sakhalin regions and Jewish Autonomy.

The anti-aircraft missile division is a unit capable of, if necessary, conducting operations for some time autonomously, in isolation from the main forces. The mixed anti-aircraft missile brigade had from 2 to 6 target channels (SAM) long-range air defense systems S-200, and 8-12 air defense systems S-75 and S-125. The composition of anti-aircraft missile regiments usually consisted of three to five medium-range air defense systems S-75M3 or S-300PS. Also in the Air Defense Forces of the Land Forces of the Far Eastern Military District there were numerous short-range complexes of regimental units Strela-1, Strela-10, and ZSU-23-4 Shilka, divisional air defense systems Osa-AK / AKM and Kub as well as air defense systems "Buk-M1" and "Circle-M1" of army and front submission.

In the mid-1990s, a landslide reduction in the units and formations of the 11th Air Defense OA began. All Su-15TM, ​​MiG-23ML / MLD / MLA and MiG-25PD / PDS fighters were withdrawn from combat personnel. In some cases, the fighter aviation regiments armed with them were completely disbanded. By 1995, all S-75 and S-125 air defense systems were withdrawn from combat duty. The long-range S-200 suffered the same fate in the late 1990s. Although the complexes removed from combat duty, in most cases did not immediately go to "disposal", but were transferred to the reserve base, several years after the "storage" in the open air and without appropriate protection, the hunters for radio components containing precious metals made them absolutely unsuitable for future use. As a result, as a result of a series of reductions, reforms and measures to “give a new look”, the 11th Air Defense OA began to represent a pale shadow of the military power that existed in Soviet times. This is clearly seen in the example of the 8th Air Defense Corps, narrowed to the 25th Red Banner Komsomol Air Defense Division. In 1991, strategically important sites in the Komsomolsky, Solnechny and Amursky districts were protected by 14 air defense systems S-75M3, S-125M / M1, S-200VM. In the second half of the 1990s, all air defense systems available in this area were concentrated in the 1530th air defense system rearmament at the S-300PS. The regiment, stationed in the LATO ZATO, 40 km north of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, consisted of 5 divisions, of which three were on constant combat duty.


Google Earth satellite image: S-400 position in the vicinity of Verkhnyaya Ekon

Relatively recently, the personnel of the 1530th zrp mastered the S-400 air defense system. Instead of five, the regiment became two anti-aircraft missile battalions, and he was relocated in the vicinity of the village of Big Cartel. At the same time, the military town in the closed city of Lian was abandoned and is now being plundered. The divisions of the 1530th zrp alternately carry combat duty, one in the place of permanent deployment, at the former position of the Duga ZGRLS, the other on the banks of the Amur River, not far from the village of Verkhnyaya Ekon.

About the same situation now with other parts of the air defense, preserved in the 11th army. In addition to the 1530th anti-aircraft defense system, the 25th anti-aircraft defense system has the 1529th guards anti-aircraft missile regiment (3 S-300PS anti-aircraft missile systems), stationed in the vicinity of the village of Knyaze-Volkonsky near Khabarovsk, and the 1724th anti-aircraft missile regiment (2 anti-aircraft missile systems S-300V ), located near Birobidzhan and is now in the process of reorganization and rearmament.

In the 93rd anti-aircraft defense, in the area of ​​responsibility of which the Primorsky Territory has two anti-aircraft missile regiments: the 533th guards anti-aircraft missile regiment, the Red Banner Regiment (3 S-400), defends the city of Vladivostok, and the 589th anti-aircraft missile regiment (2 S- 400) must defend Nakhodka.


Google Earth satellite image: S-400 position near Nakhodka, on the cape separating Tungus and Popov bays
In Kamchatka, three S-400 divisions of the 1532th anti-aircraft missile regiment are deployed. Anti-aircraft positions protect the submarine base in Krasheninnikov bay, the city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and the Yelizovo airfield.


Google Earth satellite image: S-400 position in the vicinity of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky

Thus, using simple calculations, it is possible to calculate the number of anti-aircraft missile launchers that are on alert in the Far Eastern Military District. Under the condition of full technical serviceability of 13 zrdn, the positions can have up to 416 ready-to-use missiles with a strike range of 90-250 km (without taking into account two S-300V4 zrds of the 1724th zrp, which is in the process of rearmament), which can be used to reflect the first massive plaque. Given the fact that two missiles are usually aimed at a single air target, under ideal conditions, in the absence of fire resistance in the form of delivering anti-radar and cruise missiles with launch systems with an autonomous guidance system and in a simple jamming environment, with a probability of destruction of about 0,9 approximately 200 targets can be fired.

In two fighter aviation regiments (22nd and 23rd IAP) of the 303rd mixed aviation Smolensk Red Banner Order of the Suvorov Division, according to information published in open sources, there are 36 Su-35S, 6 Su-30SM, 6 Su-30M2, 4 Su-27SM and 24 MiG-31. At the Yelizovo airport in Kamchatka, the MiG-31 interceptor squadron of the 317th separate mixed aviation regiment is based, the number of which is estimated at 12-16 aircraft. Since part of the combat aircraft is constantly under repair and in reserve, approximately 80 fighters can be raised into the air to reflect a massive raid, which, of course, is not enough for such a vast territory. When fulfilling the tasks of intercepting at the maximum combat radius and suspension of four medium-range air combat missiles and two melee missiles, it can be expected that a pair of S-35C or MiG-31 is capable of shooting down four enemy cruise missiles in one combat mission. However, the capabilities of the Su-27SM and Su-30M2, equipped with less advanced radar systems, in which the ammunition does not have UR ​​with AGSN, is much more modest.

In eastern Russia, we now have 13-15 medium and long-range air defense systems and less than a hundred fighters. Compared to 1991, anti-aircraft missile systems bearing constant combat duty in the region have decreased by 4,6 times, and the number of fighters has decreased by more than 3 times (actually more, since we took into account only the USSR air defense interceptors without front-line fighters) . In fairness, it must be said that the existing S-300PS, S-300V4 and S-400 air defense systems, even with three times less numbers, are theoretically capable of simultaneously firing more aerial targets than first-generation systems removed from service. However, the statements of our senior military and civilian officials that the new anti-aircraft systems, due to the greater number of guidance channels and increased firing range, have efficiencies greater than 10 or more times, are cunning. Do not forget that the means of air attack of the likely "partners" also stepped forward. Cruise missiles with a launch range exceeding the S-400 air defense zone are included in the ammunition of not only long-range bombers, but also tactical and carrier-based aircraft. In addition, it is physically impossible to destroy a single anti-aircraft missile with a conventional warhead of more than one air target. Given the enormous size of our Far Eastern territories, the extreme underdevelopment of ground communications and the presence of serious threats from the United States, Japan and China, the grouping of ground air defense in the Far East is completely inadequate and requires multiple reinforcement.

As for the general condition of our object air defense, it is far from ideal. Moscow and partly St. Petersburg are well covered from air strikes; in the rest of our country there is focal air defense. Many strategically important facilities, such as nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power stations, large industrial and administrative centers, and even areas where strategic missile divisions are deployed, are not at all protected from air attack weapons.

According to information published in open sources, in our armed forces, taking into account the airborne forces and air defense, there are no more than 130 divisions equipped with S-300PS / PM1 / PM2, S-300V / V4, S-400, Buk-M1 / SAM systems M2 / M3. " At first glance, this is a very significant amount, which allows us to talk about our overwhelming superiority over the United States and NATO in the field of air defense. However, in the next few years, the S-300PS air defense systems and the Buk-M1 air defense systems built in the USSR will inevitably be decommissioned due to the full exhaustion of the resource and the absence of air defense anti-aircraft missiles. Also, one should not forget that a significant part of the territory of our country is within the reach of American tactical and carrier-based combat aircraft, and in the Far East, our peace-loving "strategic partner" has multiple military superiority.

Given the fact that not a single new long-range anti-aircraft missile system was delivered to the Russian Air Defense Forces between 1994 and 2007, we can say that now the situation has begun to gradually improve. In addition to fire weapons, the air defense troops receive new radars, modern means of communication, control and electronic warfare. However, at present, deliveries of new equipment and weapons only replace in combat units what has to be written off due to extreme physical wear and tear and hopeless obsolescence. To increase the combat potential and increase the number of anti-aircraft missile systems protecting the integrity of our air borders, additional financial resources are required. The main arguments of opponents of the improvement of ground-based air defense are its high cost and inability to independently ensure victory in an armed conflict, since the role of air defense is defensive. But at the same time, the fighting in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya demonstrates that weak ground air defense is an absolute guarantee of a quick and complete defeat in the war.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

132 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mitroha 27 March 2020 18: 13 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    "we can say that now the situation has begun to gradually improve"
    Let's hope that this will continue on an increasing basis. And we will more often read about the successes of our defense industry and see the result in the troops
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. zyablik.olga 30 March 2020 06: 40 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Lexan
        Vlad.by (Vladimir). You served on the horns and hooves collective farm.

        And-from Vasya appeared again, and as usual in his repertoire! wassat
  2. Amateur 27 March 2020 18: 22 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    The main arguments of opponents of the improvement of ground-based air defense are its high cost and the inability to independently ensure victory in an armed conflict, since the role of air defense defensive.

    Well, the offensive is a Strategic Missile Forces with a system of hypersonic warheads. One more is added.
    If you don’t want to feed someone else’s army, you’ll feed someone else’s (Napoleon or Putin
    1. valton 27 March 2020 19: 19 New
      • 4
      • 8
      -4
      If the Iskander complex causes insomnia in the West, the Genghis Khan complex will cause them diarrhea.
      1. Petruha1 27 March 2020 20: 07 New
        • 7
        • 12
        -5
        Quote: Author Sergey Linnik
        In connection with a different conceptual approach to the construction of object and military systems, the Buk-M3 SAM has the best combat survivability. But at the same time, compared with the S-350, created for the Russian Aerospace Forces, Army "Buk-M3" is much more expensive and more difficult to operate.

        Author! But the Buk-M3 air defense system has a probability of defeating aerodynamic targets P = 0,9999. 1st target - 1st anti-aircraft missile. Does the S-350 have such a probability of hitting aerodynamic targets? Therefore, there is the expression "the end justifies the means." And you should not indicate in your review about the high cost, when dignity is much higher than a secondary disadvantage!
        1. Vlad.by 27 March 2020 22: 50 New
          • 15
          • 3
          +12
          A colleague of Petruch, the probability of defeat 0,9999 has only an open Pandora's box.
          Do not flatter yourself!
          I am an air defense ASUshnik and, believe me, am familiar with the methods of calculating the effectiveness of air defense.
          Buk itself, of any modification, as well as the unit S-300, S-400, etc. without intelligence and ACS - just a scarecrow.
          And only a properly built system from a group of radar reconnaissance of different ranges, control systems and fire weapons will make it possible to move hair in one place with the sworn “partners”.
          And then - the probability of hitting a target in such a grouping is far from 1.
          For there, too, are not fools and cabbage soup not slurping.

          You need to more carefully argue your escapades, otherwise you, with your boyish enthusiasm, look like a young enthusiastic lieutenant on the way to the first duty station with a good distribution.
          1. Petruha1 27 March 2020 23: 08 New
            • 2
            • 8
            -6
            Quote: Petruha1
            But the Buk-M3 air defense system has a probability of hitting aerodynamic targets P = 0,9999.

            Quote: Vlad.by (Vladimir)
            A colleague of Petruch, the probability of defeat 0,9999 has only an open Pandora's box.
            Do not flatter yourself!

            If you are from air defense, what is the probability of hitting a single missile, with the probability of hitting a target P = 0,9999? Waiting for an answer!
            1. Vlad.by 27 March 2020 23: 20 New
              • 6
              • 3
              +3
              You probably haven’t even released yet)))
              Good luck with the distribution!
              1. Petruha1 27 March 2020 23: 28 New
                • 3
                • 10
                -7
                Quote: Vlad.by
                You probably haven’t even released yet)))
                Good luck with the distribution!

                Learn materiel, child!
                1. Petruha1 28 March 2020 05: 14 New
                  • 4
                  • 6
                  -2
                  Quote: Author Sergey Linnik
                  S-400 air defense system is unable to hit low-flying targets outside the horizonwhich is tens of kilometers away.

                  Author! Past the goal! You confuse radio horizon with radio visibility, like many air defense specialists (but not all), in the military.
                  With the elevation of the radar 92N6E on the 40V6M tower with a height of H = 23,8 m and the flight of the Tomahawk at an altitude of H = 50 m, the radio horizon is 20,11 km, radio visibility 42,66 km (refractive index 3,57 in view of the range). Radar 92N6E will detect the target beyond the radio horizon at a range of D = 42,66, and then the S-400 will destroy it.
                  Quote: Author Sergey Linnik
                  However, one should not think that with the help of SAM 40N6E it is possible to bring down a cruise missile at the maximum range of fire. The real range of defeat of such a complex target will be many times less which is primarily associated with the difficulty of detecting Raman scattering with low ESRflying at low altitude

                  Author! Again past the target! Detection range of the Tomahawk cruise missile with an image intensifier = 1 m2 in the front hemisphere of the radar 91N6E equal to D = 424,264 km in free space, and missile detection range
                  air - ground AGM-158 JASSM with image intensifier = 0,1 m2 in the front hemisphere Radar 91N6E is equal to D = 238,581 km in free space. So the author will be right - due to the low altitude of the Kyrgyz Republic and something else.
                  Quote: Author Sergey Linnik
                  S-400 air defense systems with new SAMs significantly surpasses any complexes of the previous generation in the number of target channels, range, damage height and noise immunity, but it is guaranteed shoot down one modern combat aircraft or cruise missile with one anti-aircraft missile.

                  Author! You are mistaken - depending on what you shoot and do not listen to pseudo-specialists who do not have elementary knowledge ... I hope further - do not continue! The author, you always, like many at times in VO, confuse the direct range equation and the radar maximum range equation.
              2. zyablik.olga 28 March 2020 13: 08 New
                • 6
                • 3
                +3
                Quote: Vlad.by
                You probably haven’t even released yet)))
                Good luck with the distribution!

                This is a Troll known in VO as I-t Vasya. He is weekly sent to the ban for rudeness and the use of multiple accounts.
                1. Thunderbolt 28 March 2020 14: 33 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Olya, calmly, I am air defense
                  Ps
                  calmly, Masha, I'm Dubrovsky [m
                  1. Thunderbolt 28 March 2020 14: 39 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    ttttttt oooos
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Thunderbolt 28 March 2020 00: 59 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Amateur
      Well, the offensive is a Strategic Missile Forces with a system of hypersonic warheads. One more is added.
      You exaggerate and exacerbate. No one in their right mind will use the Strategic Missile Forces in a fleeting conflict. The enemy has complete nuclear weapons parity, so the combined arms war will be fought until the last soldier. Therefore, the Kaliningrad UR fills our General Staff with troops. And it would seem that you wave a nuclear baton from Siberia and all enemies will be rejected, but in practice, how interesting is it?
    3. Nikolaevich I 28 March 2020 03: 08 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Amateur
      Either Napoleon or Putin

      Well, yes ... Nemirovich-Danchenko, Miklouho-Maclay, Putin-Napoleon ...
    4. The comment was deleted.
  3. Thunderbolt 27 March 2020 18: 47 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    the fighting in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya demonstrates that weak ground air defense is an absolute guarantee of a quick and complete defeat in a war.
    In these conflicts, the army simpotyashki lost due to the use of more modern means of destruction of objects by the enemy. Plus the multichannel between squadrons and the streamer on the air induced by an Amer’s fotot. In our bravura articles, the US fleet appears only as a cunning scoundrel. And according to historical reports, he created an impossible for active actions the operation of the air defense batteries /// everything suddenly began to be chopped off /// Then the “Growlers” ascended into the sky, accompanying NATO strike squadrons. So, it’s known - a complete defeat. Well, and who was there blathering about the natives? l Kaliningrad ESD and ESD Crimean gorpazdo less than the Serbian defense line of the sea line.
    1. sivuch 28 March 2020 12: 08 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      The outfit for the Kaliningrad ESD and the Crimean ESD is less than the Serbian air defense line by the sea line
      ------------------------------------------
      sure ? But I am convinced of the opposite.
      Although, of course, I will not argue with Sergey that the overall picture is not very blissful so far
      1. Thunderbolt 28 March 2020 13: 16 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: sivuch
        artina is not very gracious yet

        Respectable, Sivuch, my dear, darling !! ... Now the concept of a strike from the Baltic states is tsar at headquarters. The point is that intelligence of the US Navy is firmly established at its two bases. This is the Navy of Klaipeda and Ochakov / with a call to the port of Odessa .. ... //// I gave the info, and also Norway .... but I am working on it as far as possible. Here, right now, I will be writing off with a girlfriend who has been living for many years in Chrisstiansen. She really does say that they have full quarantine, Nothing, let’s break through the guys ..........
        P.S. I'm sorry for the spelling errors. I’m just riding on the Kushka-Anayverdy train / which, according to Kamchadal dialects, means the A-star, the Nai-padu, the Religious syllable of the Kamchadal people. In a broad explanation, this stands for and look, the main faith , ver
        1. Thunderbolt 28 March 2020 13: 36 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Smoke is a borrowed word from Russian telemetrists .. It means ---- alcohol, success, good luck, ten !!! True with the term "ten," a little mistake ..... the fact is that Kamchadals count only know how to nine and the expression "hit the top ten" perplexes soldier
      2. Thunderbolt 28 March 2020 13: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Crimea and UR, the city of Kaliningrad is definitely stronger .. I thank you for the response, it speaks of reaction, speed. Usuvucha 1oo% Old school. I was waiting for everything when the refutation arrives))))
  4. Operator 27 March 2020 19: 07 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    On a fig:
    - shoot from a cannon (S-400) at sparrows (KR) when there are "Armor", "Torah", "Buki" and S-350 (to the extreme);
    - Object S-400 self-propelled launchers, and even with a lower axle than towed launchers;
    - poke the northern and eastern regions of Russia with a mass of long-range air defense systems to create air defense zones over the taiga, tundra and swamps.

    S-400 - palliative, S-500 - taxis.
    1. Vlad.by 27 March 2020 23: 04 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      More complexes, good and different!
      The shells, Torahs, Buki ... can only defend themselves, but you must be able to deprive "friends" of "vision" and the ability to jamming. This is what the S-400 and S-500 are for.
      At the same time, and as a cover against ballistic attacks by SD missiles. Only a balanced air defense group with a "long arm" and good intelligence is able to withstand a massive first strike. And then, for a while.
      Put at least a hundred Shells on the corridor and they will kick their ass with just a couple of dozen CRs under the cover of interference. The corridor will be cleared and a hundred axes will be pulled through it. And this if you do not take into account the tactics of action of strike aircraft, DRG, etc.
      1. Operator 27 March 2020 23: 27 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        AFAR spit on any electronic warfare, and even ZGRLS "Container" and "Sunflower" (working in the HF radio range) - even more so.

        So let the adversary launch their +4000 subsonic cruise missiles - most of them will fly at the turn of ~ 50 km after using anti-aircraft missiles on them with the ARGSN object-based air defense in the person of Bukov and S-350. Single cruise missiles that broke through to the turn of ~ 10 km will be intercepted by the object "Shells" and "Torahs".

        And ballistic missiles are purely specifically legal mining of the S-400 and S-500 targets.

        Therefore, nah-nah continuous air defense zone ala USSR.
        1. Grits 28 March 2020 04: 18 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          most of them will fly at the turn of ~ 50 km after the use of anti-aircraft missiles on them with the ARGSN object-based air defense in the person of Bukov and S-350. Single cruise missiles that broke through to the turn of ~ 10 km will be intercepted by the object "Shells" and "Torahs".

          It is all very beautiful. Only with the condition that all this beauty from Buki, Shell and Tori is available. The author pointed out to you, using the example of the Far East. Only a few objects are covered. Everything else is naked - hit as much as you like.
          1. Operator 28 March 2020 12: 18 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Did I say that we already had all the objects covered - targets for an enemy nuclear missile strike?

            It was just a matter of not stepping on the Soviet rake and not creating an air defense zone to protect the taiga and tundra.
      2. Petruha1 27 March 2020 23: 30 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Vlad.by (Vladimir)! Common phrases from the Internet. Quite often sound from the lips of worthy experts of Russia!
        1. Vlad.by 28 March 2020 12: 29 New
          • 6
          • 4
          +2
          Will you give a saber or will you tear all into pieces with your fingernails? )))
          Straight, I don’t want to shoot! We will shoot down axes for 400 km.
          And as for the real deal, so for some reason the missile consumption for one target grows 20-30 times ...
          Now 2020 or 1935?
          Little blood and on foreign territory, yeah.
          Chatterbox!
    2. Bongo 29 March 2020 01: 59 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      shoot from a cannon (S-400) on sparrows (KR) when there are "Armor", "Torah", "Buki" and S-350 (to the extreme

      The basis of our S-300P and S-400 air defense systems. It seems that the previous parts of the review regarding the "Shell", "Torov" and "Bukov" passed you by. request
      Quote: Operator
      S-400 - palliative, S-500 - taxis.
      Andrei, but even with your holy faith in various "wunderwaffles", you go too far. The S-500 will be much more expensive than the S-400, and this system sharpened mainly for the fight against ballistic targets and satellites in low orbits, for many reasons will not be able to become the basis of our air defense. no
      1. Operator 29 March 2020 10: 42 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Sergey, with your holy faith in the permanent Russian lag behind foreign prodigies you bend with the S-500, which will include different rockets.

        PS With four "Containers" of you, however laughing
        1. Bongo 29 March 2020 10: 53 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          Sergey, with your holy faith in the permanent Russian lag behind foreign prodigies, you go overboard with the S-500, which will include different missiles.

          Andrei, where did I talk about the backlog of the S-500, which does not exist in nature, from foreign systems, and when did I extol their combat characteristics? Please quote such statements.
          The technical appearance and characteristics of the S-500 are not yet known, but I fully admit that the composition of the new air defense system will be 40N6E or 48N6E3 missiles. But how will this increase the ability to combat the Kyrgyz Republic?
          Quote: Operator
          PS With four "Containers" of you, however

          Why are you doing this?
          1. Operator 29 March 2020 11: 03 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            To the fact that you have denied the obvious all the way - the leading positions of the Russian Federation in the field of over-the-horizon radar. I hope that due to ignorance of the materiel.
            1. Bongo 29 March 2020 11: 06 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Operator
              To the fact that you have denied the obvious all the way - the leading positions of the Russian Federation in the field of over-the-horizon radar. I hope that due to ignorance of the materiel.

              Andrei, are you out of your mind? Please quote where I “denied”.
              In our country, there are very serious developments on ZRLS, but the scope of these stations is very specific, and they will never replace mobile stations on duty and in combat mode.
              1. Operator 29 March 2020 12: 17 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                A miraculous time has come, however - soon even thymoquines with climatic ones will vehemently demand quoting them with a denial of the existence of the Poseidon NPA, not to mention its key indicators, announced by the Supreme Commander of the RF Armed Forces.

                Let's wait a bit and you yourself will publish an article on VO about the unmatched universal ZGRLS "Container" laughing
                1. Bongo 29 March 2020 12: 25 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Quote: Operator
                  A miraculous time has come, however - soon even thymoquines with climates will vehemently demand quotation of them with denial of the existence of the Poseidon NPA

                  What does Timokhin with Klimov and Poseidon have to do with it, is it really about this? no
                  If someone ascribes to another person what he has never done, and is not able to confirm, what will be the relation to the indicated character? Maybe you should not project your fantasies on others?
                  Quote: Operator
                  Let's wait a bit and you yourself will publish an article on VO about the unmatched universal ZGRLS "Container"

                  Andrei, I write only about what I myself am interested in. In addition, I am not a specialist in the field of radar.
  5. lucul 27 March 2020 19: 10 New
    • 11
    • 9
    +2
    With some kind of hostility towards us, this article was written in Russian, they say I really do not want to write it, but since you ask ....
    1. Petruha1 27 March 2020 19: 49 New
      • 7
      • 7
      0
      Quote: lucul
      With some kind of hostility towards us, this article was written in Russian, they say I really do not want to write it, but since you ask ....

      lucul (Vitaliy), your comment is one of a kind, truthful, honest! And the rest put on masks, and not everyone writes ok!
      1. Vlad.by 27 March 2020 23: 08 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        Petruha, and what are you writing such comments ???
        Unrighteous and dishonest? )))
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. sivuch 28 March 2020 12: 12 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      It is written fairly objectively. If you want to dislike - ask for a professor. He will succeed
    3. zyablik.olga 28 March 2020 13: 13 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Quote: lucul
      With some kind of hostility towards us, this article was written in Russian, they say I really do not want to write it, but since you ask ....

      It is strange when the opinion of Russians is expressed by a citizen of another state. what In addition, after your statements that there is no anti-aircraft defense in Turkey, the author in the past specifically for the same as you did a series of articles on this subject. But apparently, he tried in vain.
      1. lucul 28 March 2020 14: 19 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        In addition, after your statements that there is no air defense in Turkey

        Hello Haifa)))
        Yes, Turkey doesn’t have its own air defense, NATO “lends” Turkey air defense, it’s not Turkey’s property, it’s a lease, all the more so as Europeans and not Turks are sitting there at the controls, and who they are ordered to bring down the NATO leadership will be knocked down - even and the president of Turkey. This was covered in detail during the coup in Turkey.
        1. zyablik.olga 28 March 2020 14: 31 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: lucul
          Hello Haifa)))

          In my Haifa, it was snowing today, but in yours! fool
          Quote: lucul
          Yes, Turkey does not have its own air defense, NATO “lends” Turkey air defense, this is not Turkey’s property, but a lease, especially since Europeans and not Turks are sitting there at the controls.

          In the elderberry garden, and in Minsk a dyatka? wassat Damn, there’s just no words, but I’m more of you in these matters. Have you ever heard of the integrated NATO air defense system and know how it works?no I don’t drink, and in the style of my husband I would suggest to argue about the air defense of the Turkish Republic for a bottle of elite alcohol. However, the debaters quickly jump off the topic that Seryozha amuses from the heart. Not so long ago, one claimed that the Kaiova combat helicopters are still in service in the United States, while the other denied the presence of a Patriot air defense system in Turkey. One began to sculpt excuses, the other turned on d.uraka.
          1. lucul 28 March 2020 14: 37 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            In my Haifa, it was snowing today, but in yours! fool

            Did your relatives call today? ))) And this trick I also know yours)))
            Have you ever heard of the integrated NATO air defense system and know how it works?

            Circus ! And why do we need such an air defense system that DOES NOT SUBMIT to the leadership of this country, where it is located, and which will easily bring down the number one side at the direction of another country, huh? )))) What kind of independence can be discussed here ....
            Militarily, this is called a colony, or civilian vassal dependence. And you rub me about the united NATO system))))
            1. Bongo 29 March 2020 02: 29 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Quote: lucul
              Did your relatives call today? ))) And this trick I also know yours)))

              Let's clarify a few points. Olya, my wife, unlike you, we have the citizenship of the Russian Federation and live in the Far East. As far as xenophobia and nationalism are concerned, I am deeply convinced that this is characteristic of people who are limited and frankly stupid. By demonstrating this, you must be aware of how you will be perceived. negative Among our acquaintances, besides Russians, there are Jews, Nanai, Udegeites, Koreans, immigrants from the Caucasus, Ukraine and Belarus. It is important how a person manifests himself and what is himself, and not his nationality.
              Quote: lucul
              And why do we need such an air defense system that DOES NOT SUBMIT to the leadership of this country, where it is located, and which will easily bring down the number one board at the direction of another country, huh? )))
              wassat It’s even difficult to comment, but I’ll try. After your repeated statements that Turkey does not have its own air defense system, I specifically made a series of review articles, but unfortunately it passed you by. request
              Quote: lucul
              What kind of independence can be discussed here ....
              Militarily, this is called a colony, or civilian vassal dependence. And you rub me about the united NATO system))))

              I involuntarily recalled our Foreign Minister, oh well ... Tell me, being a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Belarus is also in "vassal dependence" on Russia? Or Syria, in the territory of which there is our military base?
              The fact that Turkey, being a NATO country through the center at the Konya airbase, transmits data from 9 powerful radars to the combined NATO air defense CP in Ramstein, this does not mean that any country has control over the Turkish air defense system, whose command post is located on at the Diyarbakir air base. The Turks, as part of a unified air defense system, also receive data from NATO radars, and information from the American Sentry is broadcast to the Turkish Communist Party. Thus, we can talk about interaction, but not about control by NATO and the United States.
              1. lucul 29 March 2020 10: 34 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                It’s even difficult to comment, but I’ll try

                Circus !!!!
                You at least read about Erdogan’s misadventures, in his plane, during the coup attempt, in Turkey. I understand that this information passed you by the side .....
                1. Bongo 29 March 2020 10: 44 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Quote: lucul
                  Circus !!!!

                  It is a circus !!! When a person for whom they made a whole cycle about Turkish air defense did not read it. wassat
                  Quote: lucul
                  You at least read about Erdogan’s misadventures, in his plane, during the coup attempt, in Turkey. I understand that this information passed you by the side .....

                  A very correct example! good
                  The Air Force and Air Defense Directorate during the coup attempt in Turkey was lost, and the Turkish Air Force even attacked government targets. But how is this connected with the hierarchy of building the air defense of the Turkish Republic?
                  1. lucul 29 March 2020 10: 49 New
                    • 2
                    • 3
                    -1
                    But how is this connected with the hierarchy of building the air defense of the Turkish Republic?

                    What does it mean lost? !!!
                    Erdogan could stupidly by phone, or by radio to contact the nearest air defense, and order / ask to destroy the F-16, which drove him in the sky over Turkey. Is not it so ? But, to the campaign, all the air defense was simply blocked from the outside. And that is why Erdogan wanted to buy our S-400 in order to be able to guarantee control of its air defense.
                    1. Bongo 29 March 2020 10: 58 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      Quote: lucul
                      Erdogan could stupidly by phone, or by radio to contact the nearest air defense, and order / ask to destroy the F-16, which drove him in the sky over Turkey. Is not it so ?

                      No. You have absolutely no idea how a centralized air defense system works and is managed no
                      Quote: lucul
                      But, to the campaign, all the air defense was simply blocked from the outside.
                      Campaign, only in your imagination.
                      Quote: lucul
                      And that is why Erdogan wanted to buy our S-400 in order to be able to guarantee control of its air defense.

                      Read what was written specifically for you, and you will be happy.
                      1. lucul 29 March 2020 11: 05 New
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        -1
                        You absolutely have no idea how a centralized air defense system works and is managed

                        It is enough to know that she did not fulfill her functions at the most critical moment for the country. It's like a gun - at the most important moment when the enemy pointed a gun at you - your gun was never able to fire, misfiring misfire. That's all you need to know about Turkey’s air defense.
                        Read what was written specifically for you, and you will be happy.

                        Thank you very much - I, as an author, will definitely not read you.
    4. Bongo 29 March 2020 12: 27 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: lucul
      With some dislike for us, this article was written in Russian

      This article was written without hostility, but is largely intended for those with pink glasses.
  6. Sergey Averchenkov 27 March 2020 19: 17 New
    • 10
    • 4
    +6
    Sorry, I’m not a special specialist in air defense, but it seems to me that we have the best in the world ... Even Israel did not stand next to its dome, another question is that our territory is very large
    1. Lopatov 27 March 2020 19: 48 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      Sorry, I’m not a special specialist in air defense, but it seems to me that we have the best in the world ... Even Israel did not stand next to its dome, another question is that our territory is very large

      Controversial.
      Israel controls 100% of its territory. We cannot afford it. How could the USSR allow it.
      They say that of the post-Soviet only Belarus has no focal air defense. But they have their own problems
      1. Sergey Averchenkov 27 March 2020 19: 56 New
        • 9
        • 4
        +5
        I said that I was not an expert in air defense, and then I added that we have a large territory. Is not it? Covering this entire air defense territory is unrealistic. What is Israel How many Israel will enter Russia?
        1. Lopatov 27 March 2020 19: 57 New
          • 9
          • 4
          +5
          Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
          Covering this entire air defense territory is unrealistic.

          Looking for someone. The USSR succeeded.
          1. Sergey Averchenkov 27 March 2020 20: 01 New
            • 9
            • 6
            +3
            No, it didn’t work out. And we are always covered by large industrial centers and important infrastructure objects.
            1. zyablik.olga 28 March 2020 13: 16 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
              No, it didn’t work out. And we are always covered by large industrial centers and important infrastructure objects.

              The author, using the example of the Far East, clearly demonstrated the difference between what was in the USSR and what is now. Have you read the article at all, or just looked at the pictures?
          2. Operator 29 March 2020 10: 47 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            The USSR had a parody of the air defense of the national territory - see the flight of Matthias Rust.

            The technical level of the 1980s did not allow this, on the other hand - but the hell is this generally applicable to the territory of our country?
            1. Bongo 29 March 2020 11: 56 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Quote: Operator
              The USSR had a parody of the air defense of the national territory - see the flight of Matthias Rust.

              The technical level of the 1980s did not allow this, on the other hand - but the hell is this generally applicable to the territory of our country?

              In the late 80s, the USSR had the most advanced air defense system in the world and a continuous radar field at medium and high altitudes over the entire territory of the country. Can we boast of this now? no
              As for the incident with Rust, you cannot but know that he was discovered and escorted after crossing the border, but you didn’t bring down. In my opinion, out of fear of responsibility. In the depths of the territory, he was lost due to uncoordinated actions and a series of accidents and overlaps, but no one imagined that he would sit on Red Square. The heads flew after that, but it was already impossible to correct what had happened.
              1. Operator 29 March 2020 12: 24 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                It is not necessary to replace the air defense zone of the national territory (which was not during the USSR) with the zone of radar coverage of this territory (which was with holes at low altitudes, of course).

                Your legend about tracking Rust’s plane over the entire flight path is refuted by you: “no one assumed that he would sit on Red Square” (pvoshniki do not assume that pvoshniki see or don’t see).
                1. Bongo 29 March 2020 12: 35 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  Quote: Operator
                  It is not necessary to replace the air defense zone of the national territory (which was not during the USSR) with the zone of radar coverage of this territory (which was with holes at low altitudes, of course).

                  Have you come up with a new term "national air defense zone"? what Well, okay, this is not about that. As for what was and what was not, maybe you as a person in this area are much more informed than me, tell me what strategically important object in the USSR was not covered by air defense systems?
                  Quote: Operator
                  Your legend about tracking Rust’s plane over the entire flight path is refuted by you: “no one assumed that he would sit on Red Square” (pvoshniki do not assume that pvoshniki see or don’t see).

                  Andrei, you carefully read what they answered, or as usual - just fits into your worldview. It’s not difficult for me, I repeat:
                  Quote: Bongo
                  they found him and escorted him after crossing the border, but did not begin to shoot him down. In my opinion, out of fear of responsibility. In the depths of the territory, it was lost due to uncoordinated actions and a number of accidents and overlaps.

                  What do you disagree with? With the fact that the light-engine plane was not shot down due to fear of scandal, or with the fact that it was lost in the depths of the territory?
                  1. Operator 29 March 2020 12: 44 New
                    • 2
                    • 4
                    -2
                    I have a characteristic - the former head of the profile department of the General Staff of the USSR Air Defense Forces.

                    Therefore trust me bully
                    1. Bongo 29 March 2020 12: 48 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      Quote: Operator
                      I have a characteristic - the former head of the profile department of the General Staff of the USSR Air Defense Forces.

                      Cool argument! good We will list our relatives, acquaintances and who studied with whom?
                      1. Operator 29 March 2020 13: 27 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        Admit - you did not have contacts in the General Staff of the USSR Air Defense Forces laughing
                      2. Bongo 29 March 2020 13: 29 New
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        +4
                        Quote: Operator
                        Admit - you did not have contacts in the General Staff of the USSR Air Defense Forces

                        For this, I did not go out with a title. But I had contacts at the headquarters of the 11th Air Defense OA. wink
              2. Crimean partisan 1974 April 2 2020 11: 29 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Your legend about tracking Rust’s plane over the entire flight path is refuted by you: “no one imagined that he would sit on Red Square” ..... they did, but the point is that the friend of the “humpback” tode kissed and rubbed at the feet of the west . and the military remembered what the internal separation was for the downed South Korean Boeing 1 Semtemba of 1983, and in 83 the USSR had not kissed the West yet, although the air defense had done everything according to the state, it was flogged, and with the hunchback, no one dared to stop Tsesna’s flight to. ..87-m, everyone simply overshadowed the consequences, and there was no need for slamming on the air defense as a whole, there were responsible persons who tenaciously held on to their money resources (chairs)
      2. Nemchinov Vl April 3 2020 14: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
        How many Israel will enter Russia?
        not at all !!! they don’t need it hi
        Quote: Spade
        Looking for someone. The USSR succeeded.
        also not a fact ...
        Quote: Operator
        The USSR had a parody of the air defense of the national territory - see the flight of Matthias Rust.
        there it is all a matter of indecision and fear of taking responsibility for making an important decision (in fact for the performance of their own duties) !!
    2. Thunderbolt 28 March 2020 00: 24 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      \
      They say that of the post-Soviet only Belarus has no focal air defense. But they have their own problems
      A non-firing zone of artillery fire. \, Then HIMARS pressure and NATO air force pressure, they will primarily take off take-offs and aircraft shelters. Leaving the depressed points of these important objects, the enemy will launch a second wave of artillery bombardment before landing airborne groups and bombing the reconnaissance and assault battalion strips light highway. Upon leaving and consolidating the mentioned brigades, NATO aviation redirects its actions, acting on tactical airfields, places of reconnoitered clusters and supposed /// according to war plans /// deployment of the enemy. The main guarantee of NATO is Dominance in the Air. an unshakable postulate, they build their principle of blue arrows. Yes, they are bastards, but only Saddam Hussein tried to challenge their scheme. And the beautiful Iraqi aces burnt down at the airfields. They paralyzed the management of heavy departments, when even the division could not wait for take-off, because tablets with a real situation burned out in corps points.
      1. Vlad.by 28 March 2020 17: 33 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Just do not need about RB, plz ...
        Just like in the neighboring ruin - the most powerful army, air defense, navy ...
        Write about the most honest and incorruptible leadership.
        Oh, I forgot about the best heirs! )))
    3. sivuch 28 March 2020 12: 19 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Strictly speaking - not 100%. Nobody tries to shoot down missiles falling in open areas.
      This applies even more to the Russian Federation - no air defense will cover the entire taiga
      1. Lopatov 28 March 2020 12: 24 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: sivuch
        Strictly speaking - not 100%. Nobody tries to shoot down missiles falling in open areas.

        100% is not when they are necessarily shot down. And when there is an opportunity to bring down. Or SAM or aviation
        Plus control of 100% of the airspace over the country.
  • Radikal 27 March 2020 19: 37 New
    • 9
    • 7
    +2
    Good article, respect to the author! hi By the way, recently on the site there were two articles about camouflage, and so in the pictures illustrating this article it is clearly visible that the issues of camouflaging positions and dispersal of air defense systems in the air defense / airborne forces are currently, to put it mildly, extremely irresponsible. What they hope for is incomprehensible. winked
  • Sergei 777 27 March 2020 19: 48 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Well, in general, if the pace of rearmament continues, then you can sleep peacefully. Another 20-30 divisions C 400 will buy + 12 divisions C 350. But with the air defense of the Eastern District trouble. One regiment S300v4 is not enough. At least 2-3 are necessary.
  • BREAKTHROUGH READY 27 March 2020 19: 56 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    But at the same time, hostilities in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya demonstrate that weak ground air defense is an absolute guarantee of a quick and complete defeat in a war.
    The author claims that if Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya had more powerful air defense, would the result of conflicts be different?)
    It seems to me that even the presence of the S-500 in the armed forces of these countries would not have dramatically changed anything.
    1. Lopatov 27 March 2020 19: 59 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
      The author claims that if Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya had more powerful air defense, the result of the conflicts would be different?

      There would be no result. Because there would be no conflict itself.
      Although, of course, nuclear weapons, as practice shows, are better than air defense in preventing conflicts.
      1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 27 March 2020 20: 05 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        That's it.
        Only it is important not nuclear weapons, but the very possibility of causing unacceptable damage, which makes any aggression unprofitable.
        I consider the tactics of repulsing massive air strikes by air defense forces to be obviously unsuccessful, because of which too much money is spent with non-obvious benefits.
    2. sivuch 28 March 2020 12: 22 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Which country is such an air defense. How can Third World countries have air defense, like the USSR?
      1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 28 March 2020 16: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        How can Third World countries have air defense, like the USSR?
        Yes, like this, the USSR did not spare funds for "military assistance" to the little brothers. In the same Syria and Iraq, concentrated forces quite comparable actually with some sort of Soviet air defense army were concentrated. The result and real effectiveness we all know, and you can not blame all the blame on the crooked Arabs.
        1. sivuch 28 March 2020 17: 33 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          And not nearly comparable. Both quantitatively and especially qualitatively. In the same Iraqi army, the army numbered more than 60 divisions and 20 brigades - about 650-700 tp (I write from memory, but the order is like this). So compare - how much air defense equipment was to fall in the states of the Soviet division and how many Iraqis were in reality. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll throw specific figures tomorrow. And the Arabs, they are of varying degrees of curvature, the Syrians are still the best, the Libyans are the worst, the Iraqis are somewhere in between. But in any case, there were very serious problems with the technical culture.
          1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 29 March 2020 00: 52 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            In the same Iraqi army, the army numbered more than 60 divisions and 20 brigades - about 650-700 tp (I write from memory, but the order is like this). So compare - how much air defense equipment was to fall in the states of the Soviet division and how many Iraqis were in reality.

            25 SAM S-75M "Volga"
            10 SAM S-75M3 "Volga"
            11 TDN S-75M
            1336 V-755 + 192 missiles
            680 missiles V-759 + 25 training missiles
            34 air defense systems S-125M "Pechora-M"
            16 air defense systems S-125M1A "Pechora-M1A"
            16 TDN S-125M
            2321 missile V-601PD + 131 training missile
            21 TN "Accord-75/125"
            6 divisions of the air defense system 2K12 "Square" (???)
            8 P-14F radar
            6 radar "Defense-14"
            1 ACS ASURK-1ME
            And not nearly comparable.
            That's for sure. Syria for 82 years was generally unprecedented, and has no analogues in the world, the concentration of very modern air defense forces.
            1. sivuch 29 March 2020 10: 01 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Firstly, it would be nice to indicate the source, i.e. this -
              https://bmpd.livejournal.com/257111.html
              Deliveries of the Soviet air defense systems of the country abroad
              which, in turn, refers to historykpvo.narod2.ru.
              Secondly, are you sure that for a country like Iraq this is a lot? And most importantly - modern. I didn’t just ask how much the standard Soviet division had an air defense system, an air defense system, a radar station, an ace, and how many in a similar Iraqi one.
              Here http://forums.airbase.ru/2015/02/t90884--irakskoe-pvo-91.html Iraqi Air Defense-91
              my article five years ago:
              I decided to post a short article on Saddam’s air defense in '91. Since it is often considered a copy of the Soviet one, I decided to compare one with the other. So far the first part.
              There are no major replenishment or corrections yet.
              And here is the second part - http://forums.airbase.ru/2015/09/t90884_2--irakskoe-pvo-91.1919.html
              This is about the country's air defense.
              As for Syria-82, in my opinion, you simply do not know what air defense equipment was modern at that time. Since you watched an article from the BMPD, then compare - what the Syrians had at that time and what they threw after the bastards (and they didn’t get a lot after, for example, Kroogi, Buki, not to mention 300)
  • mvg
    mvg 27 March 2020 20: 14 New
    • 7
    • 12
    -5
    The only true professional article on VO in a lot of time. Also optimistic. The amount of attack means that a probable opponent has is not shown. But we have not taken into account “caps”, but there are a lot of them
    1. Lopatov 27 March 2020 22: 08 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: mvg
      But we have not taken into account “caps”, but there are a lot of them

      Of course a lot
      2076 pieces on 415 deployed media. They help in terms of air defense even better than "tanks at enemy airfields"
      1. mvg
        mvg 27 March 2020 22: 35 New
        • 2
        • 13
        -11
        Of course a lot

        "Shovels", and you just mastered the article? Well, a dialogue about the "tanks", or, as usual?
        How many thousand pieces have the Syrians released? And they shot down a lot? In my memory, the IL-20, and the F-16, and then crawled to himself. In the East, 400+ units and 80 sides, estimate that only Japan has 39 destroyers of 64-96 cells, 21 diesel-electric submarines and the national “Tomahawk”, so what's with the “caps”? Add 240+ sides, also with KR and RCC.
        PS: Will your GDP climb for vigorous chumadan?
        1. Lopatov 27 March 2020 22: 58 New
          • 7
          • 2
          +5
          Quote: mvg
          Will your GDP climb for vigorous chumadan?

          Of course not.
          He will be scared for his deposits in American banks 8)))))))))))))))
          This is just a holiday !!! Sauce pans painted in the colors of the national flag and bales of foil 8)))))))))))))

          You know, Google is not only designed to determine the nationality of lumberjacks using the "satellite" layer on maps.
          In Google, you can find the meaning of the expression "Fleet in being"

          It absolutely does not matter what Putin will do with the "vigorous chumadan." at the hypothetical moment of the decision .. For "Fleet in being"

          Quote: mvg
          "Shovels", and you just mastered the article? Well, a dialogue about the "tanks", or, as usual?
          How many thousand pieces have the Syrians released? And they shot down a lot? In my memory, the IL-20, and the F-16, and then crawled to himself. In the East, 400+ units and 80 sides, estimate that only Japan has 39 destroyers of 64-96 cells, 21 diesel-electric submarines and the national “Tomahawk”, so what's with the “caps”? Add 240+ sides, also with KR and RCC.

          Hooray!!! Hats flew !!!

          But here is the problem, the only possible response to a massive missile strike on the territory of the Russian Federation may be a reciprocal-counter. For this may be an attempt at a disarming strike.
          "Fleet in being"

          No, of course you can hope for # a little confused .... But I’m afraid you still won’t find an American president who is ready to bet on it ...
          Therefore, I'm afraid your hat-thrower is not particularly effective ...
          1. mvg
            mvg 27 March 2020 23: 17 New
            • 3
            • 10
            -7
            American president, ready to put on it ...

            Did I draw the word amerika here? Japan-san can take a risk alone .. It’s easy, as it was more than once.
            And escho times for the "tanks"; a lot of Egypt’s air defenses were there, crossing the Sinai? And how many Israeli air forces would destroy from 500-800 tanks breaking through for 100-150 km of march, without resistance?
            PS: And prepare the caps to come in handy, all of a sudden our air defense ... is equipped, as usual.
            1. Sergey_G_M 28 March 2020 01: 42 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Japan-san can take a chance alone ..

              It can not, for a long time Japan is not independent.
              a lot of Egypt’s air defenses were there, crossing the Sinai?

              The problem with the Egyptian tanks was that the air defense did not cross.
              PS: And prepare the caps to come in handy, all of a sudden our air defense ... is equipped, as usual.

              And when did our air defense show itself poorly?
              1. mvg
                mvg 29 March 2020 11: 37 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                And when did our air defense show itself poorly?

                All Soviet air defense delivered to the Arabs failed, including in Syria.
                Egyptian air defense delayed their tanks for a day. The next day, Israel already had 450 tanks there. Something like this. And as soon as Egypt got out from under the umbrella, got the teeth
                1. Bongo 29 March 2020 11: 44 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Maxim, hello!
                  Quote: mvg
                  All Soviet air defense delivered to the Arabs failed, including in Syria.
                  Egyptian air defense delayed their tanks for a day. The next day, Israel already had 450 tanks there. Something like this. And as soon as Egypt got out from under the umbrella, got the teeth

                  In this case, I do not quite agree with you. In the Doomsday War, Arab air defense (especially Squares) proved to be very good from the technical point of view. Most of the failures were primarily due to organizational issues.
            2. Lopatov 28 March 2020 09: 14 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Quote: mvg
              Did I draw the word amerika here?

              And without its go-ahead, a massive missile strike on Russia is possible?
              Do not make me laugh
              Quote: mvg
              Japan-san can take a chance alone.

              The next attempt to use the capcometer? “Can Japanese be dumber than American presidents?” I do not think this is possible.
              For we will endure their massive blow, albeit with great losses. And they are ours, no. Too much population density.


              Quote: mvg
              And escho times for the "tanks"; a lot of Egypt’s air defense was jammed there,

              Israel has always been saved by the fact that no retaliation was struck on its territory. This will not work with Russia
              1. Vlad.by 28 March 2020 17: 41 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                Sometimes, colleague, I’m willing to argue with you. But here - I absolutely agree!
              2. mvg
                mvg 29 March 2020 12: 07 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                For we are their massive blow

                may there not be masses of blow. the Kuril Islands will be squeezed out in a quiet manner, everything, further for popcorn with sake
                1. Lopatov 29 March 2020 12: 14 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  Quote: mvg
                  may there not be masses of blow. the Kuril Islands will be squeezed out in a quiet manner, everything, further for popcorn with sake

                  Throw hats. Because # confused
                  No more arguments?
              3. Nemchinov Vl April 3 2020 14: 21 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Israel has always been saved by the fact that no retaliation was struck on its territory. This will not work with Russia
                ... and when the IL-20 seems shot down (well, supposedly because of them) ...
                Quote: Spade
                This will not work with Russia
                ... and-and-and ...?!
                Quote: Vlad.by
                Sometimes, colleague, I’m willing to argue with you. But here - I absolutely agree!
                ..?! So because of them or not ?! ... And-and-and that with a retaliatory strike on the territory of the state of Israel?! ...
  • Gust 27 March 2020 22: 35 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Sergey, thanks for the impartial analysis. However, well ... In fairness, it must be said that the enemy’s quantitative outfit has also shrunk since Soviet times. At the same time, new means of attack appeared - LCs of different sizes, overloading the target channels (this is a plus for interference), but we also have electronic warfare systems developing .. Everything is not so simple, in short, when used in combination.
    Yes, here’s another point: for the stability of air defense, it is critically important to ensure the combat stability of the air defense system, surrounded by an echeloned ring of object air defense. Then the fighters will have time to take off and arrange a glorious hunt for the Kyrgyz Republic. And finally, for the Western model of gaining superiority in the air, AWACS aircraft are critically important. Therefore, we need the ultimate means of carrying AWACS aircraft, albeit based on aeroballistic PRLR (such as a modified Iskander).
    1. Operator 27 March 2020 23: 41 New
      • 3
      • 5
      -2
      DRLO aircraft in conflict with the Russian Federation have no chance at all - the range of the S-500 along the flying AWACS hippo, shining in the radio range like a Christmas tree, is 600 km - i.e. 100 km longer than the AWACS detection range.
      1. Gust 28 March 2020 00: 21 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Alas ... the probable partner is not made with a finger either. Both AWACS and Growlers will interfere. His guard purely theoretically (I hope) will try to destroy the attacking missiles with anti-ballistic missiles. And the most important thing here is speed. Atmospheric flight imposes restrictions on the speed of the rocket. Aeroballistic ammunition has an advantage here — it flies most of the distance much faster according to the ANN, attacks from above at an angle of 70-90 degrees, carries out an additional search for the target and its capture before entering dense layers. At the same time, it is practically not affected by interference and is practically not intercepted.
        1. Operator 28 March 2020 01: 43 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          I do not mind.
        2. Sergey_G_M 28 March 2020 01: 49 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Long-range anti-aircraft missiles at maximum range also fly along an aeroballistic trajectory.
          At the same time, it is practically not affected by interference

          The type of trajectory does not affect the noise immunity.
          1. Gust 28 March 2020 10: 30 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            They can use the elements of this trajectory, but they fly along the control center on the basis of the SSC data on various guidance methods, and after that from their ARGS. And the breakdown of escort here is an extremely undesirable situation.
            ZGRLS cannot give an accurate control center, therefore, the aeroballistic PRLR flies to the target location area according to the ANN, without radio correction, respectively, and is not affected by interference. When entering the target location area, the ARGS is turned on (a combination with the DOS is possible) and looks for the target from above. AWACS has never been stealth, moreover, its upper and lower projections have maximum EPR, which means a greater signal to noise ratio, all other things being equal. Cloths emitting sectorial noise, PAR and AFAR have their own diagrams, their energy characteristics decrease with increasing angle. So the type of trajectory INFLUENCES the noise immunity.
            1. Sergey_G_M 28 March 2020 11: 23 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              You are a little misunderstood.
              A missile flies 400 km at an average speed of 1000 m / s, it turns out it flies 400 seconds (take data for example), during which time the target can maneuver and move away from the calculated interception point to the zone where neither the ARGS nor the OGNS will find this target and / or the rocket does not have time to choose a miss - i.e. irrespective of the guidance methods, radio correction is necessary and the disruption of tracking is really undesirable (no matter how wonderful the ANN is, without radio correction it will bring the missile to a point calculated 400 seconds (6,5 min) ago).
              Once again:
              Long-range anti-aircraft missiles at maximum range also fly along an aeroballistic trajectory.

              Because these are long-range missiles and fly at maximum range, and the aeroballistic trajectory is the most energetically advantageous, and at the same time missiles fall on the target from above.
              1. Gust 28 March 2020 12: 38 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Well, let's have an accessible language. Take, for example, a dagger based on open data when launched at a distance of 600 km along a quasi-ballistic trajectory. The average speed before entering the dense layers of the atmosphere is about 10M or 3 km / s rounded. The accuracy of the primary control unit is several km. When launched at this point, the rocket will arrive in 600/3 = 200 s. During this time, the target will have time to shift in any direction by 250 * 200 = 50 m in the worst case. When you turn on the ARGSN after passing through the zone of maximum speed head from a height of 000 km and a speed of 30-3 M by the active mode, the Agatov’s head will easily capture the target from a distance of 5 km (for comparison, the target capture range of a fighter type with an ESR of 40 sq. M is far from new 5B-9M-1103 heads are about 350 km away. Not to mention that there is a passive mode which is preferable for this purpose, and it also shines not too badly in the infrared. Is there probably enough energy for the five-step stage for an arbitrary change of trajectory, probably not. But the rocket can be two-stage chat with your second stage taxiway, no?
  • Imperial Technocrat 28 March 2020 01: 18 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Yes, yes, the best in the world of air defense both in quality and in quantity + the best electronic warfare, but it lost. Typical gigkin
  • Chaldon48 28 March 2020 03: 09 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    It seems that the USSR will never catch up with the Russian Federation.
    1. Sergey_G_M 28 March 2020 05: 02 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Unfortunately, the USSR has been gone for over 30 years.
      The population of the USSR is about 300 million, the Russian Federation - 140 million - there is a huge gap in economics and industrial and scientific potential, and if we add the allies of the USSR (especially when China was an allied one), the sphere of influence and support in the world (yes was serious, a lot of people in the world sympathized / supported the socialist ideas of the structure of society), then the gap between the Russian Federation and the USSR is simply catastrophic.
      Catch up? Is it worth it? It seems to me that we need to focus on the welfare of citizens of the Russian Federation while not forgetting about security and foreign policy interests (foreign policy is not only demagogy, but also security and a lot of money from trade), the policy that is now being pursued by the country's leadership is, in my opinion, quite reasonable given our capabilities .
  • YOUR 28 March 2020 05: 19 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    At first glance, this is a very significant amount, which allows us to talk about our overwhelming superiority over the United States and NATO in the field of air defense.

    Not the case when you can compete. Competitions in the field of air defense look different, as the country is protected from attacks by a potential enemy. For some, one SAM is enough, we have too much territory. So much so much that recently speaking to the audience, the Commander-in-Chief of RTV said that a continuous radar field over Russia covers only 40% of the territory, and then at high and medium altitudes
    Many strategically important facilities, such as nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power stations, large industrial and administrative centers, and even areas where strategic missile divisions are deployed, are not at all protected from air attack weapons.
    Not a secret. For example, in the Far East air defense there is only in Primorye this is mainly a fleet cover, and from Chita to Khabarovsk there is a hole.
    The article is too large and in general fundamental to comment on it like that.
    The author did a good job.
  • Nikolaevich I 28 March 2020 06: 05 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Alas ... the bulk of SAM in Russia is morally obsolete! First of all, the concept of the last century was obsolete, within the framework of which an air defense system was built ... Outdated zuras of the 48N6 type and others, "built" according to the same concept ... Radars placed on the "towers", problems accumulating in the concept, do not solve ! A new concept is needed! In principle, the "theses" of the new concept are already "appearing through" ... it remains to draw attention to this, work through them, accept the update program ...
    1. Sergey_G_M 28 March 2020 06: 27 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      What makes you think that the concept of SAM is out of date?
      A lot of air defense systems are outdated, but the system is constantly being upgraded, new ACS are being introduced, and new air defense systems are being commissioned now at a pretty good pace.
      Air defense systems and air defense systems are very expensive systems and in no country in the world when a new system is commissioned does complete / global rearmament take place, but the old / obsolete is gradually replaced by a new one, even the economic hegemon / bubble with a printing press (usa) has money no.
      A new concept is needed! In principle, the "theses" of the new concept are already "appearing through" ... it remains to draw attention to this, work through them, accept the update program ...

      At the 2nd Central Research Institute of the RF Ministry of Defense, they constantly think about this, don’t share about new theses and new concepts (many simply don’t know where to pay their attention) it is very interesting!
      1. Nikolaevich I 28 March 2020 09: 29 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Sergey_G_M
        do not share about new abstracts and new concepts

        Oh, I don’t know ... I don’t know how to be! In principle, I’m not “greedy” (!) ... sometimes I’m ... But I have often shared my (!) Vision of the “new concept” when commenting on articles “devoted” to topics such as air defense (in different hypostases "...)," parsing ", significant, SAM, ... etc. ! I would not say that my "speeches" were supported by a significant number of VO readers! Because .... is it worth wasting time now on "detailed explanations" when the readers' attention to this article has already "receded" like "that train"? But next time I’ll try (in the case of publishing a suitable thematic article ...) to clarify my idea of ​​the “new concept” of building anti-aircraft missile systems ... hi
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Nikolaevich I 28 March 2020 13: 20 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            Do you have a hobby or an innate psychic manic ... do you have to shit in slippers?
  • Sahalinets 28 March 2020 07: 12 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Well, it was smooth on paper ... I understand that now our ultrapatriots will put me a bunch of minuses, but the question remains - what will be the probability of hitting targets in a war with a really advanced opponent?
    On the S-75, our military also caressed themselves with wonderful numbers, but in Vietnam these figures fell not even many times, but ten times! You can recall about the complete removal of Syrian air defense in 1982.
    In short, no matter how repeated 41 years. Before him, too, there were hat-thinking moods and propaganda tried with might and main ...
    1. Sergey_G_M 28 March 2020 07: 52 New
      • 6
      • 4
      +2
      Yes, they will throw you down and do it right, and not only because you accuse the majority of the site readers of "cheers of patriotism", but comment on it from the position of "everything is lost."
      It’s just that you wrote your message and tried to convey your position solely relying on emotions without giving facts, if you want to convey your position please rely on facts.
      And the facts: in Vietnam, the S-75 performed well: "3228 combat launches were carried out, approximately 3.1 missiles per 1 downed plane" is only about the S-75. It turns out the S-75 "planted" more than 1200 aircraft.
      On the S-75, our military also caressed themselves with wonderful numbers, but in Vietnam these figures fell not even many times, but ten times

      Yes, the numbers are very mouth-watering, I don’t even know, they probably promised that 10 planes would be shot down with one missile, otherwise "the performance didn’t even drop many times, but tens of times," as it didn’t fit!
      1. Sahalinets 28 March 2020 12: 08 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        My dear man, less would you read the cheers-patriotic resources!
        Here is the data from the journal Technology and Armament, No. 4, 2003.
        According to Soviet data, air defense missile systems shot down 1163 aircraft, at an expense of 6806 missiles. Those. almost six missiles per plane. Americans recognize the loss of 205 aircraft from air defense systems (excluding UAVs).
        And then the authors of the article write: "Comparison of the reports of rocket launchers judging the results of firing by marks on the screen with the more primitive Vietnamese method, taking into account debris and serial numbers, give an overestimation of firing results by 5-9 times."
        1. alstr 28 March 2020 17: 27 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So to speak. In different periods of the war, the results were different.
          In the initial period, the results were not very bad. There were cases of a single missile shot down 3-4 aircraft.
          By the end of the war, performance really did decline. Consumption increased to 5-7 missiles per shot down. In addition, the actual consumption of missiles is not important if the combat mission is completed. And the task was to protect the object. Moreover, by the end of the war, techniques had been developed when the air defense system itself was not the main striking force - a lot of them were ambushed by the anti-aircraft guns. And the bait was just the SAM.

          As a result, air defense systems (not only air defense systems) became one of the main reasons for the victory of Vietnam. And the merit of the air defense system is that US aviation had to move from high to low altitudes, and this facilitated the work of anti-aircraft guns.
      2. sivuch 28 March 2020 12: 31 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        In Vietnam, in fact, the S-75 was not (like much else). There were SA-75s that were no longer supplied to the USSR air defense. But, I think, your opponent does not fall to such trifles wink
      3. Nemchinov Vl April 3 2020 14: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Sergey_G_M
        And the facts: in Vietnam, the S-75 performed well: "Combat launches carried out 3228, about 3.1 rockets for 1 downed plane "it's just about the S-75. It turns out the S-75" planted " more 1200 airplanes.
        And you definitely divided all the digits correctly ?! belay lol wink
  • sivuch 28 March 2020 12: 33 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Sergey, did you receive my letter with a dice tablet?
    1. zyablik.olga 28 March 2020 13: 20 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: sivuch
      Sergey, did you receive my letter with a dice tablet?

      Hello, hello! Seryozha went to the taiga, fishing. Only the tomorrow will return.
    2. Bongo 29 March 2020 02: 33 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: sivuch
      Sergey, did you receive my letter with a dice tablet?

      Got. Thank you!
  • Bongo 29 March 2020 11: 12 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: lucul
    It is enough to know that she did not fulfill her functions at the most critical moment for the country. It's like a gun - at the most important moment when the enemy pointed a gun at you - your gun was never able to fire, misfiring misfire. That's all you need to know about Turkey’s air defense.

    Even if you cast aside your fantasies about how the air defense system is controlled, I am extremely curious, but what could be used to bring down the F-16 rebels at that time in Turkey? Was there a gun at all?
    Quote: lucul
    Thank you very much - I, as an author, will definitely not read you.

    That is, I did not know, and I do not want to know. I have not read it, but I condemn it. I will continue to demonstrate belligerent ignorance and flog nonsense. wassat
  • Operator 29 March 2020 12: 38 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: Bongo
    I am not a specialist in the field of radar

    Note - this is not me who said laughing

    In that case, just believe me in terms of the capabilities of the Container ZGRLS, which are determined by the power of a full-time supercomputer (which I am an expert in) or, at least, do not state otherwise.
    1. Bongo 29 March 2020 12: 44 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      Note - this is not me who said

      Nevertheless, I have an idea about the capabilities of the radar technology available in RTV.
      Quote: Operator
      In that case, just trust me regarding the capabilities of the Container ZGRLS (determined by the power of a full-time supercomputer, and not the parameters of the radial part), or at least do not state otherwise.

      Sorry, but taking into account the fact that you have one sound mind, three disputes - I will refrain from believing you. Especially after you announced the presence of ZGRLS on the islands reclaimed by the Chinese and "Caliber" on the Su-34.
  • Operator 29 March 2020 12: 47 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: Bongo
    you claimed the presence of ZGRLS on the islands reclaimed by the Chinese and "Caliber" on the Su-34

    Wait and see, not long left.
    1. Bongo 29 March 2020 13: 05 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      Wait and see, not long left.

      About the "calibers" on the Su-34 you first announced a few years ago. About ZGRLS in the Chinese alluvial islands, they also wrote as a fait accompli. Or am I confusing what?
      1. Operator 29 March 2020 13: 34 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Naturally, you are confusing - I did not declare about the air-caliber Caliber-A cruise missile, but posted her numerous pictures on the Su-27 and Su-30 suspension, as well as the storyboard of the air launch of this missile. Yes, I repent - I didn’t give a picture of the “Caliber-A” on the suspension of a “much less load-bearing” Su-34.
        1. Bongo 29 March 2020 13: 39 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          Naturally, you are confusing - I did not declare an air-based cruise missile "Caliber-A", but posted her numerous pictures on the Su-27 and Su-30 suspension, as well as the storyboard of the air launch of this missile.

          You wrote about the "calibers" and the X-32 on the Su-35 and Su-34. We bet on a bottle of any drink that I don’t confuse? I’ll spend time, but I’ll find your comments.
          1. Operator 29 March 2020 13: 45 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            I - about the photos, you - about the comments. Or do you doubt the capabilities of the multifunctional Su-35 and Su-34 bomber to take on board ammunition handy by the Su-27 and Su-30?
            1. Bongo 29 March 2020 13: 48 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Operator
              I - about the photos, you - about the comments.

              Let's decide whether you claimed this or not?
              Quote: Operator
              Or do you doubt the capabilities of the multifunctional Su-35 and Su-34 bomber to take on board ammunition handy by the Su-27 and Su-30?

              You do not jump off the topic, in the ammunition of all these aircraft there have never been X-32 and Caliber missiles. no
  • Operator 29 March 2020 14: 39 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: Bongo
    in the ammunition of all of the aircraft listed, there were never X-32 and Caliber missiles

    Well, if only they told you so at the headquarters of the 11th separate air defense army laughing
    1. Bongo 29 March 2020 23: 56 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      What is this idle talk about? You have failed in the past and will not be able to confirm your fantasies now.
  • Radikal 29 March 2020 18: 04 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    The USSR had a parody of the air defense of the national territory - see the flight of Matthias Rust.

    The technical level of the 1980s did not allow this, on the other hand - but the hell is this generally applicable to the territory of our country?

    Rust was the first to discover border violations by border guards. Visually. Further, everything went according to the instructions - a report to the detachment, the one corresponding to the operational duty of the district .... In general, all further actions are in accordance with the then established procedure. sad
  • Crimean partisan 1974 April 2 2020 10: 51 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    the article is tin as always, nevertheless Vladimirovich I expected that the article would be devoted to missiles. or rather, their on-board guidance systems, and the S-300 has a huge “zoo”, so to speak, and they are all different, I still don’t understand the S-400, the GOS 48N missiles remained semi-active, or was the whole AGSN?
    1. Bongo April 3 2020 15: 37 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
      the article is tin, as always, nevertheless Vladimirovich I expected that the article would be devoted to missiles. or rather, their on-board guidance systems, and the S-300’s “zoo” is huge, so to speak, and all are different

      Hello Friend!
      So there is no special "zoo". As part of the S-300PS, SAM 5V55R / 5V55RM with a firing range of 75-90 km are used. The 5V55KD radio command has long been decommissioned. However, in the next few years, the S-300PS will also leave.
      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
      GOS 48UR missiles remained semi-active, or is it all AHSN?

      SAM 48H6E family used as part of the S-300PM1 / PM2 and S-400 - with a semi-active head.
      1. Crimean partisan 1974 April 3 2020 17: 35 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        with a semi-active head ....... sorry, though tyk say selectivity with a semi-active head is better